|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 14, 2009 5:20:31 GMT
In addition to each data set having different baselines:
GISS 1950 to 1980 Hadley 1960 to 1990 NOAA 1900 to 2000 UAH & RSS 1979 to 2000
They each measure diffent things. GISS and NOAA measure the whole surface, Hadley measures the surface except the polar areas and the satellites measure a cross section of the lower troposphere from the surface to about 10 km high. Also, the satellites don't include the poles or high elevation areas (like the Himilayas and the Andes).
You can't compare them directly, but you can see if they're trending in the same directions. The satellites tend to be more sensitive to ENSO events, it may be the algorithms used to calculate temperature anomalies from microwave readings.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 14, 2009 5:56:51 GMT
In addition to each data set having different baselines: GISS 1950 to 1980 Hadley 1960 to 1990 NOAA 1900 to 2000 UAH & RSS 1979 to 2000 They each measure diffent things. GISS and NOAA measure the whole surface, Hadley measures the surface except the polar areas and the satellites measure a cross section of the lower troposphere from the surface to about 10 km high. Also, the satellites don't include the poles or high elevation areas (like the Himilayas and the Andes). You can't compare them directly, but you can see if they're trending in the same directions. The satellites tend to be more sensitive to ENSO events, it may be the algorithms used to calculate temperature anomalies from microwave readings. GISS most certainly does not "measure" temperature in the Arctic, neither does NOAA.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 14, 2009 8:13:26 GMT
In addition to each data set having different baselines: GISS 1950 to 1980 Hadley 1960 to 1990 NOAA 1900 to 2000 UAH & RSS 1979 to 2000 They each measure diffent things. GISS and NOAA measure the whole surface, Hadley measures the surface except the polar areas and the satellites measure a cross section of the lower troposphere from the surface to about 10 km high. Also, the satellites don't include the poles or high elevation areas (like the Himilayas and the Andes). You can't compare them directly, but you can see if they're trending in the same directions. The satellites tend to be more sensitive to ENSO events, it may be the algorithms used to calculate temperature anomalies from microwave readings. Looking at a blend of all 4 metrics is probably the best way to see if AGW is progressing as predicted. All 4 measurements should demonstrate warming at a similar rate...the surface and the lower troposphere. Clearly, when looking at a blend of all sources over the past 20 years, the last ten years have brought a leveling off or slight cooling to the globe. The longer this flat trend continues, the lower and lower the odds that real trends are complying with GCM predictions.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2009 9:01:44 GMT
In addition to each data set having different baselines: GISS 1950 to 1980 Hadley 1960 to 1990 NOAA 1900 to 2000 UAH & RSS 1979 to 2000 They each measure diffent things. GISS and NOAA measure the whole surface, Hadley measures the surface except the polar areas and the satellites measure a cross section of the lower troposphere from the surface to about 10 km high. Also, the satellites don't include the poles or high elevation areas (like the Himilayas and the Andes). You can't compare them directly, but you can see if they're trending in the same directions. The satellites tend to be more sensitive to ENSO events, it may be the algorithms used to calculate temperature anomalies from microwave readings. GISS most certainly does not "measure" temperature in the Arctic, neither does NOAA. It really is pathetic how surface station data is massaged. How much estimation is too much estimation? www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 14, 2009 9:14:16 GMT
Nautonnier: Interesting - using 2002-2003 as the base and 2009 Feb as the target for anomaly... it shows Labrador and the Arctic with an anomaly of 8oC warmer. 1. I'm not prepared to check out every region you have a problem with. There are independent resources you can check. 2. It's not the entire Arctic it's a region in NE Canada which, from what I recall, has remained warmer than average over the past winter. 3. It's not 8 deg - it's 4-8 deg. 4. The UAH anomaly map is not yet available, but the UAH NoPol is +1.14 for February, so it's clear the satellites are also recording warm Arctic temperatures. So all that extra ice up there is due to the _warm_ What extra ice? Arctic Ice extent this year is around average for the past 7 years. It's marginally below last year and a good bit below 2003. Kenfeldman: You're wasting your time. I've been saying broadly the same thing as you for a while, but it does no good. Woodstove: GISS most certainly does not "measure" temperature in the Arctic, neither does NOAA. Maybe not - but the extrapolation they use does seem to work reasonably well in that the GISS anomaly maps are broadly in agreement with UAH. The probable effect of the Arctic 'measurement' means that the GISS record tends to bounce around more than the Hadley record so there are times when it will look 'high' but other times, like now, when it will be 'low'
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2009 9:37:09 GMT
Nautonnier: Interesting - using 2002-2003 as the base and 2009 Feb as the target for anomaly... it shows Labrador and the Arctic with an anomaly of 8oC warmer. 1. I'm not prepared to check out every region you have a problem with. There are independent resources you can check. 2. It's not the entire Arctic it's a region in NE Canada which, from what I recall, has remained warmer than average over the past winter. 3. It's not 8 deg - it's 4-8 deg. 4. The UAH anomaly map is not yet available, but the UAH NoPol is +1.14 for February, so it's clear the satellites are also recording warm Arctic temperatures. So all that extra ice up there is due to the _warm_ What extra ice? Arctic Ice extent this year is around average for the past 7 years. It's margnally below last year and a good bit below 2003. Kenfeldman: You're wasting your time. I've been saying almost exactly the same thing as what's written in your post for a while but it does no good. Woodstove: GISS most certainly does not "measure" temperature in the Arctic, neither does NOAA. Maybe not - but the extrapolation they use does seem to work reasonably well in that the GISS anomaly maps are broadly in agreement with UAH. The probable effect of the Arctic 'measurement' means that the GISS record tends to bounce around more than the Hadley record so there are times when it will look 'high' but other times, like now, when it will be 'low' Broadly in agreement, such as GISS has been diverging from satellite for the last 7 years? How many times must a graph be constructed to prove you wrong? But, since you are an AGW skeptic and have yet to be skeptical of one single tenet of AGW, maybe it is time to bring back the sock puppets extolling your ability to argue with Gavin Schmidt an co. over at RC. Now that Scafetta and Willson have published on TSI, what will the solar deniers do other than attack them personally? The TSI dispute has in fact been based on which product is used, ACRIM or PMOD. Every single publication assigning a low solar contribution of warming for the last 30 years is based on PMOD. This notion that CO2 could account for the large increase in OHC up until 2003 is a perpetuum mobile. You still have not assigned the cause of the coming warming in the next 2-3 years. If OHC is not increasing, how then can surface temperatures hope to rise above 1998 levels, or even 2007 for that matter? It is becoming glaringly obvious atmospheric processes take a back seat to oceans with respect to what actually keeps the earth's surface in livable conditions, and water vapor dwarfs any other component in the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude. CO2 has about as much effect as spitting on the sidewalk as Reid Bryson used to say.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 14, 2009 10:22:38 GMT
RE: GISS and the ArcticOne of the most frustrating about many sceptics is that they often choose to spend a lot of time and effort "fighting the wrong war". The satellite/GISS debate is typical. The difference in trends between UAH and GISS is ~0.03 deg per decade - or 0.3.deg per century. The RSS trend (since 1979) is actually the warmest of the lot. I've spent many a happy hour arguing with Tamino and friends (not as GLC) and my greatest success often comes when I use GISS data. Two reasons: 1) they accept it 2) it doesn't always provide the overwhelming support for the AGW case that you might think it does. For example : The Arctic. Now it's true that GISS shows a pretty rapid rise in Arctic temperatures over the past 30 years or so. This link provides temperature anomalies by latitiude band .... data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt... and it's clear that between 1975 and 2005 the arctic (64N-90N) warmed by around 2 deg C. But it's just as clear that, between 1910 and 1940, it also warmed by ~2 deg C - and that between 1940 and 1970 it cooled by ~1 deg. These are pretty dramatic changes which were happening long before there was any significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It's a bit hard to argue that the first 2 degree rise is due to natural variation while the second 2 degree rise is caused by an increase in CO2. To all those who, over the past few months, have been trying to convince me of the effects of the PDO etc: The GISS Arctic temperature record provides, for me at least, the most compelling argument for largescale cyclical variation.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2009 10:51:10 GMT
RE: GISS and the ArcticOne of the most frustrating about many sceptics is that they often choose to spend a lot of time and effort "fighting the wrong war". The satellite/GISS debate is typical. The difference in trends between UAH and GISS is ~0.03 deg per decade - or 0.3.deg per century. The RSS trend (since 1979) is actually the warmest of the lot. I've spent many a happy hour arguing with Tamino and friends (not as GLC) and my greatest success often comes when I use GISS data. Two reasons: 1) they accept it 2) it doesn't always provide the overwhelming support for the AGW case that you might think it does. For example : The Arctic. Now it's true that GISS shows a pretty rapid rise in Arctic temperatures over the past 30 years or so. This link provides temperature anomalies by latitiude band .... data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt... and it's clear that between 1975 and 2005 the arctic (64N-90N) warmed by around 2 deg C. But it's just as clear that, between 1910 and 1940, it also warmed by ~2 deg C - and that between 1940 and 1970 it cooled by ~1 deg. These are pretty dramatic changes which were happening long before there was any significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It's a bit hard to argue that the first 2 degree rise is due to natural variation while the second 2 degree rise is caused by an increase in CO2. To all those who, over the past few months, have been trying to convince me of the effects of the PDO etc: The GISS Arctic temperature record provides, for me at least, the most compelling argument for largescale cyclical variation. It's a bit hard to argue that the first 2 degree rise is due to natural variation while the second 2 degree rise is caused by an increase in CO2.What is the evidence? What natural processes have been ruled out? Every effort has been to wipe out the sun's influence on climate, yet the evidence is mounting against such efforts. There is zero direct evidence that CO2 has anything but an immeasurable net effect on total heat content, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Despite denials by the blogosphere in recent months and the Santer debacle last year which has been soundly crushed, the tropical troposphere has no increasing "hot spot" as dictated by climate model outputs. Obfuscate all you wish, the "hot spot" is written in stone and is a necessary component of CO2 driven AGW. Once you can explain where the missing heat is in the system, it may give cause for me to be more accepting of CO2 as having more an effect than spitting on the sidewalk. Until then, it is simply a output resulting from predestined assumptions on the behavior of the climate system input by unlicensed programmers on very expensive video games. So, why isn't the Earth absorbing .85 +/- .15 w/m 2 more heat than is being lost to space?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 14, 2009 11:40:01 GMT
Magellan You have a tendency to post before you think - as we all do from time to time - but your enthusiasm to debunk all things AGW is masking the real flaws in the theory. In an earlier post, I wrote: "It's a bit hard to argue that the first 2 degree rise is due to natural variation while the second 2 degree rise is caused by an increase in CO2." You responded with: What is the evidence? What natural processes have been ruled out? I have no idea what you're asking or why. Could you explain?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2009 12:05:30 GMT
Magellan You have a tendency to post before you think - as we all do from time to time - but your enthusiasm to debunk all things AGW is masking the real flaws in the theory. In an earlier post, I wrote: "It's a bit hard to argue that the first 2 degree rise is due to natural variation while the second 2 degree rise is caused by an increase in CO2." You responded with: What is the evidence? What natural processes have been ruled out? I have no idea what you're asking or why. Could you explain? You are using the classic CO2 AGW argument only CO2 can explain warming of the last 30 yearsThat is a fallacious statement with no scientific backing. It is assumed to be true How can it be assumed to be true when natural processes have not been ruled out, despite the rhetoric. What has been done is to concentrate on proving man is the cause. In any experiment, all sources of uncertainty must be accounted for and ruled out. For instance, a small change in cloud cover has enormous impacts on weather and climate, obviously. The "smoking gun" for CO2 AGW is the radiative imbalance as put forth by Hansen et al 2005, which I have noted ad nauseum. Since you place so much weight on CO2, you must explain why that hypothesis is failed. So, I will ask again a very basic question so you can have no misunderstanding: why isn't the Earth absorbing .85 +/- .15 w/m2 more heat than is being lost to space? Hansen et al 2005 aka The Smoking Gun
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 14, 2009 14:25:13 GMT
Allow me to step in and say something that frequently comes to mind:
Those who bolster AGW alarmism (honestly and straightforwardly, e.g. Gavin Schmidt, or less honestly and less straightforwardly, insert name of troll here) don't seem to be big nature lovers to me.
They appear to be so obsessed with the technology brought to bear via the global circulation models and to drive the world's economy in the 21st century that they betray their lack of respect for the power of nature and natural systems.
During the coming few decades, as AGW recedes into the history books as yet another scare that got the best of us, more and more people will realize that it was our overexcitation in the face of new sources of data (supposed global temperature means, satellite ice data, global sea level anomalies, etc) that was employed to frighten the hell out of people who wanted to trust science because of respect for the positive things that science had done (modern medicine comes to mind).
But, again, I think the most heartfelt AGW proponents simply do not get out much, literally, into nature. Too busy staring at computer screens that tell them that their moment in history is unique, that they themselves are unique, that the technology at their fingertips allows them to play the role of God.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 14, 2009 14:30:34 GMT
Despite three decades' worth of scary talk, the global sea ice anomaly sits at 0. All the indices, including the Hadcrut, should continue falling for the time being, imho. A quick question for our alarmist brethren: How many of you have renounced the use of carbon-based fuel? Al Gore appears to love it! Constant jet travel (frequently private); home electric bill 20 times the U.S. average. As they say, action speaks louder than words... I pretty much have. I'm "Carbon Negative", produce much of my own electricity, own one all-electric vehicle and hope to buy a second soon, and recently started a business (I was laid off from my regular job -- it was be "unemployed" or "self-employed") pushing conservation, renewable energy, and a few other things. Algore is an idiot. He has the right cause, but being a politician means that he is destined to be a fraud, no matter how well-intentioned he is.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 14, 2009 14:52:58 GMT
Despite three decades' worth of scary talk, the global sea ice anomaly sits at 0. All the indices, including the Hadcrut, should continue falling for the time being, imho. A quick question for our alarmist brethren: How many of you have renounced the use of carbon-based fuel? Al Gore appears to love it! Constant jet travel (frequently private); home electric bill 20 times the U.S. average. As they say, action speaks louder than words... I pretty much have. I'm "Carbon Negative", produce much of my own electricity, own one all-electric vehicle and hope to buy a second soon, and recently started a business (I was laid off from my regular job -- it was be "unemployed" or "self-employed") pushing conservation, renewable energy, and a few other things. Algore is an idiot. He has the right cause, but being a politician means that he is destined to be a fraud, no matter how well-intentioned he is. Your efforts are to be applauded. Just curious: Does your electric vehicle obtain its juice from your solar panels? (I suspect it does.) The drive to switch to electric vehicles is misguided, broadly speaking, as (1) people imagine that the electricity is "clean" because they don't see the source-point pollution and (2) although coal is a necessary evil in terms of electricity for the time being, using it to power personal transportation is not. Here again is a case of good intentions having negative consequences, a la switching cropland to fuel production.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2009 17:37:58 GMT
Switching to electric vehicles opens the options for the power source.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 14, 2009 20:25:28 GMT
Switching to electric vehicles opens the options for the power source. On the level of theory (just like CO2 drives temperature), sure. On the level of fact-based reality (like our convectively complex, chaotic atmosphere-ocean system), no.
|
|